SC bars head scarf from CBSE medical exam

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the dress code prescribed by the CBSE for candidates appearing for the AIPMT exam on Saturday, barring them from wearing either a head scarf and full-sleeved shirt.

A bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy while rejecting the PIL by Students Islamic Organisation of India, said: “If you appear in an examination without a scarf, your faith will not disappear.”

Its response came as senior counsel Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the organisation, said: “Wearing head scarf is an essential religious practice. The girls will be forced to abandon the examination.”

Describing the plea as “nothing but an ego”, the court said that candidates can wear the head scarf after the exam is over. “It is only for three hours… wear scarf after three hours”, Chief Justice Dattu said.

The court also observed that faith is something different from wearing a particular type of clothes.

“Sorry, sorry, sorry, we are not going into these small issues,” Chief Justice Dattu said rejecting the plea as Hegde sought to urge the court that “minority is a minority”.

At the outset of the hearing, Chief Justice Dattu questioned the locus of the SIOI to raise the issue of dress code. “Organisation can’t come before us to question dress code and head scarf.”

The apex court on June 15 had scrapped the AIPMT for the year 2015-16 following the leak of its question paper and circulation of their answer keys through electronic devices at different examination centres in 10 states across the country.

Earlier the Kerala High Court while refusing to interfere with the dress code prescribed by the CBSE to prevent any unfair practices had granted permission to two Muslim girls to appear in the test wearing head scarf.

In a living will, a person can choose not to prolong his or her life using artificial means

The Supreme Court on Friday said a person has the “right to die with dignity” and can make an advance “living will” authorising the withdrawal of life support system if in medical view he has reached an irreversible stage of terminal illness.

While allowing a person to make the advance directive or living will, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, however, attached strict conditions for executing the “will” made by a person in his normal state of health and mind.

Supreme court give terminally ill patients the ‘living will”

In the living will, a person can state in advance that his or her life should not be prolonged with a ventilator or artificial support system. The bench, also including judges A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, laid down guidelines on who would execute the will and how the nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board.

Recognising the “right to die with dignity”, the court permitted a person to draft in advance a living will in case she/he slips into an incurable condition. “To deprive an individual of dignity at the end of life is to deprive him of meaningful existence,” said Justice Chandrachud while allowing the living will for passive euthanasia.

The court said the life support can be removed only after the statutory medical board declares the patient to be incurable. The bench said its guidelines and directives should remain in force till a legislation was brought to deal with the issue.

“Life and death are inseparable. Bodies involve continuous change but mind remains constant… Death represents culmination of life… Freedom, liberty are core of meaningful life,” Justice Chandrachud said. The court pronounced four separate but concurring judgements.

The person will have right to not prolong his or her by using artificial means. Wikimedia Commons

The court’s verdict came on a plea filed in 2005 by an NGO Common Cause seeking the right to make a living will authorising the withdrawal of life support system in the event of the will-makers reaching an irreversible vegetative state.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, had said that since a patient under coma cannot express his/her wish, law should allow him/her to put it down in writing in advance that he/she should not be tortured. In the absence of a law authorising doctors to do so, they keep incurable patients on life support, he said. IANS